Tom Tancredo: It's time to legalize drugs?!

[Danke]

Deb K,

The link still does not work for me. It displays the error message “the file is damaged and could not be repaired.” While this may be an issue with my PC, it’s not actually relevant.

Is this the link?

Aside from the crime and violence, here are some other statistics:

* Untreated addiction costs America $400 billion per year
* Untreated addiction is more expensive than 3 of the nation’s top 10 killers: 6 times more expensive than America’s number one killer: heart disease ($133.2 billion/year), 6 times more than diabetes ($130 billion/year), 4 times more than cancer ($96.1billion/year)
* 23 million Americans suffer from substance abuse addiction
* Drug related deaths have almost doubled since 1990--approximately one in four deaths each year is attributable to substance abuse.


(Source: Substance Abuse: The Nation’s Number One Health Problem, Brandeis University, Schneider Institute for Health Policy, 2001)

In addition, according to estimates from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, a combined $276 billion was spent or lost in 2005 on health care, lost productivity, premature death, crime and auto accidents relating to alcohol and drug abuse. Roughly 75 percent of all that money was paid for by public sources, which means American taxpayers are footing three quarters of the bill. With 117 million taxpayers in the U.S., this means that the average amount paid by each individual taxpayers amounted to approximately $1,800.

• 
  
  * More than 9 million children live with a parent dependent on alcohol and/or illicit drugs.
  * A recent study in the UK breaks down the estimated cost of an individual drug addict to society over the course of his or her lifetime. Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers found that the average abuser costs taxpayers over £800,000 or $1.4 million in crime prevention, health care, jail and prision accomodation and treatment. Interestingly, they also estimated that this could be reduced to under 1/10 of the cost when treatment is provided before the age of 21. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7454338.stm
  
  According to the federal Household Survey, more than 48 million Americans use alcohol an average of one or more days each week of the year. This is more than the combined total number of Americans who have ever tried cocaine, crack, and/or heroin (29.7 million), and two and a half times the number of Americans who have used marijuana once in the last year (18.7 million).
  
  Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Population Estimates 1998 (Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1999), pp. 19, 25, 31, 37, 85, 91, 105.

 

[idirtify]

And alcoholism is worse than illicit drug addiction. Probably because it is legal and more accessible so that argument doesn't hold water.

idirtify's argument is full of holes, and I remain unconvinced. No one has yet to provide any stats from other countries that conclude that drug legalization has been good for the country. I've been looking and can't find any. And I'm talking about studies from journals, etc. NOT blog articles per say. Perhaps if someone can show me how well it has worked out in countries comparable to ours - NOT full blown socialist countries with socialize medicine - then maybe I'll believe differently about how much better our society would be if all street drugs were legal.

Deb K,

Speaking of “holes”:

Your ideas about the “worse addiction” and is “probably because” are technically irrelevant. There are many problems in society that should not be treated with prohibition. That’s because these “problems” have no direct victims / do not consist of rights violations / do not consist of initiated aggression. Yet a simple extension of your logic would apparently treat any societal problem with prohibition. Sports injuries are a big problem. Would you solve that problem by prohibiting sports, or just by prohibiting “unapproved sports”, or just “harmful sports”, or just “unprotected sports”, or just “sports that indirectly risk employers and loved ones”? Another big problem is STDs. A very large percent of Americans have (had) them. Will you be advocating sex prohibition? If not, why not? It follows your reasoning perfectly. You know, your reasoning that totally fails to recognize the individual’s right to engage in activity that has no direct victim – or that considers such a thing as “good for the country”.

 

[nickcoons]

Yet a simple extension of your logic would apparently treat any societal problem with prohibition. Sports injuries are a big problem. Would you solve that problem by prohibiting sports, or just by prohibiting “unapproved sports”, or just “harmful sports”, or just “unprotected sports”, or just “sports that indirectly risk employers and loved ones”?

Of course not.. you'd just prohibit sports injuries.

 

[Deborah K]

Deb K,

The link still does not work for me. It displays the error message “the file is damaged and could not be repaired.” While this may be an issue with my PC, it’s not actually relevant. While you say you’ll “cut me slack” on my misrepresentation accusation, you provided nothing that refutes it. What’s up with that? Are you denying my accusation or not? If you correctly represented the stats, why did you not back them up with a quote from the source? You certainly provided plenty of other quotes. What’s the problem with quoting the relevant premise behind them; the part that represents the stats as you did? Not only did you fail to do that originally, you failed to do it AFTER I confronted you. So here is your third chance. Besides, I can’t see your source article and am only guessing – you have the advantage. Of course you really don’t have to do it at all if you aren’t worried about your credibility.

Regarding your other comments about other government agencies potentially controlling drugs, nickcoons spoke for me very well.

If the link doesn't work on your computer, how does that mean I misrepresented the facts? As I stated initially, the link works in your own post. Reread my post with the studies. I backed up everything I asserted. And, if it's not relevant anyway, then why are you making such a big deal about it?

I'm not worried at all about my credibility. I don't see the legalization of drugs the same way you do. However, I suggest that if your goal is to attempt a character assassination on me, by calling my credibility into question, and in an effort to divert attention away from your weak argument, you would do well cease and desist.

I see you haven't provided any source for your assertion that prohibition is the cause for untreated addiction. Second request.

 

[idirtify]

Is this the link?

No. That was Deb K’s post. Here’s the link:
http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/other/SubstanceAbuseChartbook.pdf

 

[Danke]

No. That was Deb K’s post. Here’s the link:
http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/other/SubstanceAbuseChartbook.pdf

Ya it works, maybe update your Adobe Reader?

 

[Deborah K]

Deb K,

Speaking of “holes”:

Your ideas about the “worse addiction” and is “probably because” are technically irrelevant. There are many problems in society that should not be treated with prohibition. That’s because these “problems” have no direct victims / do not consist of rights violations / do not consist of initiated aggression. Yet a simple extension of your logic would apparently treat any societal problem with prohibition. Sports injuries are a big problem. Would you solve that problem by prohibiting sports, or just by prohibiting “unapproved sports”, or just “harmful sports”, or just “unprotected sports”, or just “sports that indirectly risk employers and loved ones”? Another big problem is STDs. A very large percent of Americans have (had) them. Will you be advocating sex prohibition? If not, why not? It follows your reasoning perfectly. You know, your reasoning that totally fails to recognize the individual’s right to engage in activity that has no direct victim – or that considers such a thing as “good for the country”.

I don't really care about your "technically irrelevant" issues with my verbiage. I'm not at a podium in front of an audience for the sole purpose of debating the issue against the legalization of drugs. If I were, that would be an entirely different story.

You are trying to imply, using illogical analogies, that I am against individual rights. I believe that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone elses rights or property. In the case of addiction, this is almost never the case. Someone besides the addict becomes affected sooner or later. Often it is young children. My other issue is gov't control and regulation in the event drugs become legal. No one here can provide any solid evidence that drug legalization in other countries like the US has been successful. Until such time as someone can do that, I remain unconvinced.

We are going to have to just agree to disagree. I'm finished with this debate.

 

[nickcoons]

The arguers for prohibition, when asked who the victim is, often answer that society is the victim. But there are a lot of problems with that answer.

First, society is not an entity that can be victimized, only individuals can be victims. Let's take an extreme example -- a nuclear attack. The individuals in that society are victims, and as a result the quality of life of individuals within society has fallen. This is a direct result of the fact that large numbers of individuals have been victimized. So clearly, this violates the non-aggression principle.

Second, let's say that at this very moment, I shoot up / smoke / sniff meth (however meth is administered). Who's the victim? How is society a victim? Well I might go out and get in my car, cause a fatal accident, or be involved in some other property damage. But society is not the victim, the individual in the other vehicle is. And the possibility that I might cause damage to someone else is not victimization of society.

We should all be free to use (our abuse) our bodies as we see fit, so long as we don't infringe on the rights of others to do the same. The notion that we can use violent force to coerce people to behave the way we want them to; that's the real danger to society.

 

[nickcoons]

You are trying to imply, using illogical analogies, that I am against individual rights. I believe that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone elses rights or property. In the case of addiction, this is almost never the case. Someone besides the addict becomes affected sooner or later.

"Affected" is not equal to "Violation of rights". If my wife loses her job, I am affected, but no rights were violated.

Similarly, if one person engages in drug use, no rights are violated. That is the only necessary argument for legalization if you truly support individual rights.

Now, if someone takes drugs and then engages in rights-violating behavior, then you prosecute the rights-violating behavior, just as if someone had engaged in the rights-violating behavior had they not taken drugs.

No one here can provide any solid evidence that drug legalization in other countries like the US has been successful.

I addressed this.. there are no countries that exist like the US that have legalized drugs en masse.

Until such time as someone can do that, I remain unconvinced.

Unconvinced of what? That prohibition is a direct violation of the individual's rights? There's no question that it is.

 

[Theocrat]

One Weak Argument

The arguers for prohibition, when asked who the victim is, often answer that society is the victim. But there are a lot of problems with that answer.

First, society is not an entity that can be victimized, only individuals can be victims. Let's take an extreme example -- a nuclear attack. The individuals in that society are victims, and as a result the quality of life of individuals within society has fallen. This is a direct result of the fact that large numbers of individuals have been victimized. So clearly, this violates the non-aggression principle.

Second, let's say that at this very moment, I shoot up / smoke / sniff meth (however meth is administered). Who's the victim? How is society a victim? Well I might go out and get in my car, cause a fatal accident, or be involved in some other property damage. But society is not the victim, the individual in the other vehicle is. And the possibility that I might cause damage to someone else is not victimization of society.

We should all be free to use (our abuse) our bodies as we see fit, so long as we don't infringe on the rights of others to do the same. The notion that we can use violent force to coerce people to behave the way we want them to; that's the real danger to society.

Some people would argue that the use of some kinds of drugs would cause the user to become a danger to individuals in society by reason of the drugs' effects on the individual. A person who becomes addicted to heroin, for instance, may be so desperate to get more heroin that the person would put someone else's life or property at risk just to get money for more heroin. I don't buy that argument, and even if that were the case, I would say we need to ensure we have the right to arm ourselves publicly to prevent such mishaps from occurring.

Drug rehabilitation or prohibition should always be solved at the lowest level. It should start with the family and then work its way out to churches and private organizations of concerned citizens. The federal government really should not be involved in any drug legalization, for it has no authority to legalize substances which come from the earth nor does it have the constitutional jurisdiction to regulate responsible behavior on such a personal level. If our nation understood that, we would probably see a decrease in drug users and pushers. Empowerment of individuals and faith in God are hallmarks to this issue.

 

[nickcoons]

If the link doesn't work on your computer, how does that mean I misrepresented the facts? As I stated initially, the link works in your own post. Reread my post with the studies. I backed up everything I asserted.

Let me try to clarify what I think he's saying. In one of your posts, you made the following claim:

Aside from the crime and violence, here are some other statistics:
* Untreated addiction costs America $400 billion per year

He suggests that wherever this information came from (it's not in the PDF you linked, it's 133 pages, but I did a textual search for "400", as in $400 billion, and nothing was found), it does not separate "crime and violence" from the other costs. That is, he suggests that crime and violence are included in the $400 billion that Americans pay annually due to drugs. If this is true, then you did misrepresent it, because you're saying that the $400 billion is in excess of the crime and violence. He asked that you please provide a source for this so that he could verify it for himself. Without re-reading the thread to be sure, I don't believe you responded to this request.

The reason this is important is because most crime and violence associated with drugs is an effect specifically of drug prohibition, which would mean that the prohibition of drugs, not their use, is largely responsible for the $400 billion.

 

[nickcoons]

Some people would argue that the use of some kinds of drugs would cause the user to become a danger to individuals in society by reason of the drugs' effects on the individual. A person who becomes addicted to heroin, for instance, may be so desperate to get more heroin that the person would put someone else's life or property at risk just to get money for more heroin.

That's the argument that my "shoot up with heroin, get in a car" scenario was intended to address.

I don't buy that argument, and even if that were the case, I would say we need to ensure we have the right to arm ourselves publicly to prevent such mishaps from occurring.

Drug rehabilitation or prohibition should always be solved at the lowest level. It should start with the family and then work its way out to churches and private organizations of concerned citizens. The federal government really should not be involved in any drug legalization, for it has no authority to legalize substances which come from the earth nor does it have the constitutional jurisdiction to regulate responsible behavior on such a personal level. If our nation understood that, we would probably see a decrease in drug users and pushers. Empowerment of individuals and faith in God are hallmarks to this issue.

Other than the faith in god part, I'm in agreement with you.

Interestingly, an individual came to my house today raising money for a faith-based organization that helps people kick their drug habits, and he was helped by that organization to get him off heroin. He asked for a few bucks, because they don't take government funding. I told him jokingly, "As an atheist, I don't support faith-based organizations. But as a libertarian, I'm glad you don't take government money," and I made a donation.

 

[idirtify]

If the link doesn't work on your computer, how does that mean I misrepresented the facts?

snip

Deb K,

You wrote:
“If the link doesn't work on your computer, how does that mean I misrepresented the facts?”
It doesn’t. The malfunctioning link is not the slightest bit associated with your misrepresentation. But here is a short list of things that suggest you misrepresented the stats:
1) You failed to quote the part that was integral to your argument;
2) You failed to quote the part after I confronted you;
3) You failed to quote the part after I confronted you again;
4) Instead you are currently distracting with some very strange replies.

You wrote:
“As I stated initially, the link works in your own post.”
If you mean what I think you mean, that’s YOUR PC – it still doesn’t work on mine.

You wrote:
“Reread my post with the studies. I backed up everything I asserted.”
OK. Apparently I missed the quote that backed up your original assertion that said this:
“Aside from the crime and violence…”
So I will go reread your post #33. ……… Nope, still not there. If you still insist that it is, please quote your quote that backed up your assertion that the stats were “aside from the crime and violence”.

You wrote:
“And, if it's not relevant anyway, then why are you making such a big deal about it?”
First, YOU made it relevant to the validity of your argument when you tried to claim it as the premise. Second, it becomes a bigger deal every time you fail to provide the back up quote.

You wrote:
“I'm not worried at all about my credibility.”
Do you not care whether your posts are credible?

You wrote:
“I don't see the legalization of drugs the same way you do. However, I suggest that if your goal is to attempt a character assassination on me, by calling my credibility into question, and in an effort to divert attention away from your weak argument, you would do well cease and desist.”
Obviously, my reference was to your posting credibility and NOT to your personal character.

You wrote:
“I see you haven't provided any source for your assertion that prohibition is the cause for untreated addiction. Second request.”
Well I would try to provide a source if I thought I had made such an assertion. Please tell me where I did. If you are not going to quote it, at least give me the post number.

 

[idirtify]

Ya it works, maybe update your Adobe Reader?

I did. Updated from 8 to 9. Didn't help. Keyboard problems too. It's to the shop toimorrow.

 

[Deborah K]

Perhaps I was not clear in what I wrote, since it seems that you two are misinterpreting it. I am not claiming that the costs of "crime and violence" are included or not included in the 400 billion. Which is what you are trying to claim that I stated. Let me clarify: besides crime and violence associated with addiction, here are some other statistics. Does that help?

This is sheer nonsense. This is no longer about a debate over the legalization of drugs - you have turned this into an attack on my words, all while attempting to deny your own. You've made two claims that you have yet to back up with sources. It's right in here for everyone to read.

I have not misrepresented any statement I have made. I have sourced my assertions which is something you have yet to do. Your argument is weak so instead of sticking to the facts your angle is a feeble attempt at dissecting my phraseology.

 

[idirtify]

I don't really care about your "technically irrelevant" issues with my verbiage. I'm not at a podium in front of an audience for the sole purpose of debating the issue against the legalization of drugs. If I were, that would be an entirely different story.

You are trying to imply, using illogical analogies, that I am against individual rights. I believe that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone elses rights or property. In the case of addiction, this is almost never the case. Someone besides the addict becomes affected sooner or later. Often it is young children. My other issue is gov't control and regulation in the event drugs become legal. No one here can provide any solid evidence that drug legalization in other countries like the US has been successful. Until such time as someone can do that, I remain unconvinced.

We are going to have to just agree to disagree. I'm finished with this debate.

Maybe you should care more, because your “verbiage” = your POSTS. If I am not to reply to your words, then what?? Maybe you SHOULD place more importance on word choice – because you ARE “debating the issue against the legalization of drugs”.

How are my analogies of sports injuries and STDs “illogical”. Please explain.

Your view of addiction as something that infringes on others’ rights or property is not reasonable. Besides, people can get addicted to many things. You want overeating prohibited? How about work? Many people are addicted to it. According to your standard, it has many victims (including young children) and therefore should not be completely legal.

Regarding your idea of what is “successful” for a country, suffice it to say that it leaves a lot to be desired by libertarians.

Sorry, I do not recognize the term “agree to disagree”. Of course you are free to stop debating at any time, but if you stop now my accusation will certainly stand and you will have knowingly committed a blatant misrepresentation.

 

[Deborah K]

You don't get to pick when I tire of debating an issue with someone. Besides, you are not debating an issue, you are mincing words and phrases because you can't debate the facts. It is called "intellectual dishonesty" and you are full of it.

 

[Deborah K]

QUOTE=nickcoons;2140791

(it's not in the PDF you linked, it's 133 pages, but I did a textual search for "400", as in $400 billion, and nothing was found),

It's there, it's just that it's broken down into the different costs per untreated addiction. Added up it comes to exactly 414.4 billion. It's on pages 21 and 22. And I already addressed the confusion with regard to my quote :"...crimes and violence...."

 

[idirtify]

Perhaps I was not clear in what I wrote, since it seems that you two are misinterpreting it.
snip

Deb K, your words are in quotes. Mine are not.

“Perhaps I was not clear in what I wrote, since it seems that you two are misinterpreting it.”
OK. Let’s look at what you wrote again, and analyze its clarity:
“Aside from the crime and violence, here are some other statistics”.
1) That’s very clear;
2) No one is misinterpreting it;
3) Its meaning was already established by your preceding sentence: “I can tell you that addiction costs this country much more than the drug war”.

You were writing quite clearly. The stats (costs to society) either included crime and violence or they didn’t. You indicated more than once that they did NOT. Now you want to claim I misinterpreted your simple lines? GMAB! You were clearly making a distinction between drug-war crime & violence and the cost of addiction, yet your source made no such distinction. That’s blatant misrepresentation and your current behavior effectively admits it.

“I am not claiming that the costs of ‘crime and violence’ are included or not included in the 400 billion."
You definitely claimed that crime and violence was NOT included in the costs you posted, despite what you are trying to claim NOW. You are now apparently trying to misrepresent your misrepresentation because you got caught.

“Which is what you are trying to claim that I stated.”
Good luck blaming your words on me, or blaming me for misinterpreting them. It’s a very old face-saving tactic.

“Let me clarify: besides crime and violence associated with addiction, here are some other statistics. Does that help?”
Apparently you are trying to go back and change your words, but it’s not even much of a change. It looks to imply the same thing; that THESE stats do NOT include crime and violence – also misleading.

“This is sheer nonsense. This is no longer about a debate over the legalization of drugs - you have turned this into an attack on my words”
I will freely attack you words as I see fit. And since your words are entirely about legalization, the debate is still on-topic (and not “sheer nonsense”).

“all while attempting to deny your own. You've made two claims that you have yet to back up with sources. It's right in here for everyone to read.”
Have I falsely denied something? Are you referring to your earlier accusation (that you failed to quote, and I asked you to and you failed again)? If so, why don’t you just quote me? I know you know how to copy-and-paste.

“I have not misrepresented any statement I have made.”
You are making it very difficult to continue to abstain from accurately characterizing your increasing amount of intentional misstatements.

“I have sourced my assertions which is something you have yet to do.”
What exactly do you need me to source? Please specify. Regarding my assertion that confronts yours, the issue is how you represented your source – so I can’t really 'source’ that beyond pointing it out.

“Your argument is weak so instead of sticking to the facts your angle is a feeble attempt at dissecting my phraseology.”
I disagree. I think my argument is good. I think I stick to the facts. I think I did a pretty good job rebutting your words.

 

[idirtify]

It's there, it's just that it's broken down into the different costs per untreated addiction. Added up it comes to exactly 414.4 billion. It's on pages 21 and 22. And I already addressed the confusion with regard to my quote :"...crimes and violence...."

Deb K,

What are you saying now? Are you saying that your representation of the stats is “there…on pages 21 and 22”? Please explain; because while you have “addressed the confusion” about your representation, you have certainly not validated your representation. If the validation is on those pages, why did you not quote it?